HOME

TheInfoList



OR:

English tort law concerns the compensation for harm to people's rights to health and safety, a clean environment, property, their economic interests, or their reputations. A "tort" is a wrong in civil, rather than criminal law, that usually requires a payment of money to make up for damage that is caused. Alongside contracts and
unjust enrichment In laws of equity, unjust enrichment occurs when one person is enriched at the expense of another in circumstances that the law sees as unjust. Where an individual is unjustly enriched, the law imposes an obligation upon the recipient to make re ...
, tort law is usually seen as forming one of the three main pillars of the law of obligations. In English law,
tort A tort is a civil wrong that causes a claimant to suffer loss or harm, resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act. Tort law can be contrasted with criminal law, which deals with criminal wrongs that are punishable ...
s like other civil cases are generally tried in front a judge without a
jury A jury is a sworn body of people (jurors) convened to hear evidence and render an impartial verdict (a finding of fact on a question) officially submitted to them by a court, or to set a penalty or judgment. Juries developed in England du ...
.


History

Following
Roman law Roman law is the legal system of ancient Rome, including the legal developments spanning over a thousand years of jurisprudence, from the Twelve Tables (c. 449 BC), to the '' Corpus Juris Civilis'' (AD 529) ordered by Eastern Roman emperor Ju ...
, the English system has long been based on a closed system of nominate torts, such as trespass, battery and conversion. This is in contrast to continental legal systems, which have since adopted more open systems of tortious liability. There are various categories of tort, which lead back to the system of separate causes of action. The tort of negligence is however increasing in importance over other types of tort, providing a wide scope of protection, especially since ''
Donoghue v Stevenson was a landmark court decision in Scots delict law and English tort law by the House of Lords. It laid the foundation of the modern law of negligence in Common law jurisdictions worldwide, as well as in Scotland, establishing general principle ...
''. For liability under negligence, a
duty of care In tort law, a duty of care is a legal obligation that is imposed on an individual, requiring adherence to a standard of reasonable care while performing any acts that could foreseeably harm others. It is the first element that must be establi ...
must be established owed to a group of persons to which the victim belongs, a nebulous concept into which many other categories are being pulled.


Negligence

Liability for negligence arises when one person breaches a duty of care owed to another. The main elements of negligence are: # A
duty of care In tort law, a duty of care is a legal obligation that is imposed on an individual, requiring adherence to a standard of reasonable care while performing any acts that could foreseeably harm others. It is the first element that must be establi ...
(see ''
Donoghue v Stevenson was a landmark court decision in Scots delict law and English tort law by the House of Lords. It laid the foundation of the modern law of negligence in Common law jurisdictions worldwide, as well as in Scotland, establishing general principle ...
'') # Breach of that duty (see ''
Nettleship v Weston ''Nettleship v Weston'' 9712 QB 691 is an English Court of Appeal judgment dealing with the breach of duty in negligence claims. In this case the court had considered the question of the standard of care that should be applied to a learner driver ...
'') # Breach causing harm in fact (see '' Smith v Leech Brain & Co.'') # The harm must be not too remote a consequence of the breach (see '' The Wagon Mound (No. 2)'') In some situations, defences will be available to negligence. Special rules, and considerable bodies of case law have developed around four further particular fields in negligence: for psychiatric injury, economic loss, for public bodies, and when concerning omissions and third parties.


Duty of care

The establishment of a duty of care is usually broken up into a three-step test. The first case to establish a general duty of care was ''
Donoghue v Stevenson was a landmark court decision in Scots delict law and English tort law by the House of Lords. It laid the foundation of the modern law of negligence in Common law jurisdictions worldwide, as well as in Scotland, establishing general principle ...
''. Famously, Mrs Donoghue claimed compensation for illness after she consumed a ginger beer containing a decomposed snail in a public house in Paisley,
Scotland Scotland (, ) is a Countries of the United Kingdom, country that is part of the United Kingdom. Covering the northern third of the island of Great Britain, mainland Scotland has a Anglo-Scottish border, border with England to the southeast ...
. The bottle was opaque so neither Mrs Donoghue nor the shopkeeper could see a snail, and at the time she could not sue the shopkeeper for breach of contract or consumer rights. The House of Lords by a majority held that the manufacturer, Mr Stevenson, was liable in tort. Lord Atkin held liability was "based upon a general public sentiment of moral wrongdoing for which the offender must pay" and people "must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour." By contrast, Lord Macmillan suggested that the law should protect Mrs Donoghue by incremental analogy to previous cases. Nevertheless, Lord Atkin's speech was widely followed and was understood to contain three main points for establishing a duty of care. First, the concept of reasonable foreseeability of harm; second, the claimant and the defendant being in a relationship of proximity; third, and more loosely, it being fair, just and reasonable to impose liability on the defendant for his careless actions. This three-step scheme (also known as the tripartite or threefold test), however, did not crystallise until the case of '' Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman''. A company called Caparo took over another company by buying up a majority of its shares. It did this because it sneakily obtained word from a company audit that the target was financially sound. The audit was prepared by a group of accountants (Dickman) and was intended for shareholders, not outsiders. Once Caparo owned the company it found that the finances were in fact pretty shoddy, and so it sued the accountants for being negligent in its audit preparation. The House of Lords found against Caparo and established the current threefold test. Although it was "reasonably foreseeable" that outsiders might learn of the carelessly prepared information, it was not the case that Caparo and Dickman were in a relationship of "proximity". This the court used as a term of art (note, this is different from the American use of the word) to say that it ''should'' not be the case that absolutely anyone who heard something said that was stupid and acted on it can sue. The court was reacting to its concern that to allow a claim here might open the floodgates of litigation. The third element, whether liability would be "fair, just and reasonable", was an extra hurdle added as a catch-all discretionary measure for the judiciary to block further claims. * , found that the police owed a duty of care to a passer-by who was injured when they tried to arrest a drug-dealer * , rejected claim by police officers charged but acquitted of assaulting a prisoner for damage to their reputations


Breach of duty

Once a duty of care has been established, it must be shown that a duty has been breached. The question the courts ask is whether the behaviour exhibited by the defendant fell below the threshold of a "reasonable man" (the objective test). In some cases where the defendant was in a special profession, e.g. being a doctor, the court will ask what standard of care a "reasonable doctor" or the like might have done. Allowance is usually made for the defendants age and a lower standard of a "reasonable child of a certain age" is applied to children. On the other hand, no allowance is made for other personal circumstances, such as the fact that the defendant was inexperienced in the task he set out to perform. He is expected to perform this task as a reasonably skilled and competent person. *''
Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board ''Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board'' 015UKSC 11is a Scottish delict, medical negligence and English tort law case on doctors and pharmacists that outlines the rule on the disclosure of risks to satisfy the criteria of an informed consent. T ...
'' 015UKSC 11


Causation and remoteness

Causation is complex, and is usually discussed in two parts. Simple causation is a question of whether "but for" the action by the defendant harm would have resulted. There has been some deal of discussion over whether a contributory cause is enough, and a variety of supplementary tests have been developed (e.g. the material contribution to risk and material damage to damage tests), often to deal specifically with a particular area of liability ( asbestos cases, for instance). *'' Barnett v Kensington & Chelsea NHS Trust'' *'' McGhee v National Coal Board'' *'' Bolitho v City and Hackney Health Authority'' *'' Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd'' *'' Gregg v Scott'' After a causal link has been properly established, the courts may still deny compensation if the harm was a very remote consequence of the initial wrong. So long as a type of damage is foreseeable, however, the manner in which it occurred – however remote – is of no concern to the courts. *''
Scott v Shepherd ''Scott v. Shepherd'' 96 Eng. Rep. 525 (K.B. 1773), commonly known as the "flying squib case," is an important English tort law case on remoteness and the principle of ''novus actus interveniens'' as it related to the division between trespass and ...
'' (1773) 96 ER 525 *'' Re Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co'' 9213 KB 560 *'' Wagon Mound (No.1)''
961 Year 961 (Roman numerals, CMLXI) was a common year starting on Tuesday (link will display the full calendar) of the Julian calendar. Events By place Byzantine Empire * March 6 – Siege of Chandax: Byzantine forces under Nikephoro ...
AC 388 *''
Hughes v Lord Advocate is an important Scottish delict case decided by the House of Lords on causation. The case is also influential in negligence in the English law of tort (even though English law does not recognise " allurement" ''per se''). The case's main sign ...
'' 963AC 837


Defences

Finding a successful defence absolves the defendant from full or partial liability for damages, which makes them valuable commodities in the court. There are three main defences to tortious liability; to argue the claimant voluntarily undertook the risk of his harm, that he contributed to the harm, or that he engaged in illegal activity. ''Volenti non fit injuria'' is Latin for "to the willing, no injury is done". It operates when the claimant either expressly or implicitly consents to the risk of loss or damage. For example, if a regular spectator at an ice hockey match is injured when a player strikes the puck in the ordinary course of play, causing it to fly out of the rink and hit him or her, this is a foreseeable event and regular spectators are assumed to accept that risk of injury when buying a ticket. A slightly more limited defence may arise where the defendant has been given a warning, whether expressly to the plaintiff/claimant or by a public notice, sign or otherwise, that there is a danger of injury. The extent to which defendants can rely on notices to exclude or limit liability varies from country to country. This is an issue of policy as to whether defendants should not only warn of a known danger, but also take active steps to fence the site and take other reasonable precautions to prevent the known danger from befalling those foreseen to be at risk. Contributory negligence is a mitigatory defence, whereby a claimant's
damages At common law, damages are a remedy in the form of a monetary award to be paid to a claimant as compensation for loss or injury. To warrant the award, the claimant must show that a breach of duty has caused foreseeable loss. To be recognised at ...
are reduced in accordance with the percentage of contribution made by the claimant to the loss or damage suffered. Thus, in evaluating a collision between two vehicles, for example, if the wronged driver were not wearing a seatbelt, he would most likely be contributorily negligent. The court will then quantify the damages for the actual loss or damage sustained, and then reduce the amount paid to the claimant by 20%. Contributory negligence can also function as a full defence, when it is assessed at 100%, as in '' Jayes v IMI Kynoch''. ''Ex turpi causa non oritur actio'' is the illegality defence, the
Latin Latin (, or , ) is a classical language belonging to the Italic branch of the Indo-European languages. Latin was originally a dialect spoken in the lower Tiber area (then known as Latium) around present-day Rome, but through the power of the ...
for "no right of action arises from a despicable cause". If the claimant is involved in wrongdoing at the time the alleged negligence occurred, this may extinguish or reduce the defendant's liability. Thus, if a burglar is verbally challenged by the property owner and sustains injury when jumping from a second story window to escape apprehension, there is no cause of action against the property owner even though that injury would not have been sustained "but for" the property owner's intervention. However, a trespasser may be able to recover damages due to the unsafe state of the premises (see Occupiers' Liability below). *'' Titchener v British Railways Board''


Psychiatric injury

Historically, English courts have been reluctant to allow claims for nervous shock. Early claims involved ladies who suffered what the courts referred to as a "malady of the mind". It was not expected for men to succumb to such problems. Today, courts are considerably less cautious but additional hurdles are still imposed upon claimants under certain circumstances. The following criteria must be satisfied: *The injury must have been an event caused by the defendant – the defendant must have owed a duty of care to the claimant, but not a unilateral duty covering every eventuality, and it must have been precisely identified what duty was owed and whether the harm could have been foreseen. *The claimant must have been involved in the injury (i.e. proximity must be demonstrated). *The event must have caused a recognised psychiatric injury (e.g. pathological grief ('' Vernon v Bosley'') or post-traumatic stress disorder (''Leach v Chief Constable of Gloucestershire''). The courts had been cautious for a number of reasons, including the fear of floodgates (indeterminate liability), potential for fraud (brought on by people exaggerating their claims), problems of proof and diagnosis (including the costs of expert opinion), psychiatric illness may be considered less serious than physical harm, the claimant is often a secondary victim, and finally, the courts argued that Parliament is better suited to dealing with this area. In the case of '' Dulieu v White'' 9012 KB 669, the claimant, Mrs Dulieu, was working in a public house. While she was serving, the defendant negligently drove his horse-drawn van into the bar. She suffered shock which resulted in a miscarriage, and she sued the defendant. Mr White was held liable for causing nervous shock resulting in miscarriage, as the claimant reasonably believed herself to be in danger. Similarly, in '' Page v Smith''
995 Year 995 ( CMXCV) was a common year starting on Tuesday (link will display the full calendar) of the Julian calendar. Events By place Japan * 17 May - Fujiwara no Michitaka (imperial regent) dies. * 3 June: Fujiwara no Michikane gain ...
AC 155, it was held that Mr Smith was liable for causing Mr Page psychiatric injury (chronic fatigue syndrome) after a car crash, because Mr Smith could have reasonably foreseen that Mr Page would suffer physical injury for the crash. So liability for causing psychiatric injury depends on the foreseeability of the physical injury, as long as the psychiatric illness is medically recognised. In '' Young v Charles Church'' (Southern LTD)(1997) 39 BMLR 146, the claimant was a "participant" in the event (i.e. a primary victim – Evans & Hitchinson LJJ). He and Mr Cook were raising scaffolding poles in an area that was not secured by the employers; the power lines were not switched off. Mr Cook touched a pole to the electric wiring and suffered a horrific death which caused Mr Young great distress. Even though he never feared for the loss of his own life, the court held that Mr Young was in the area of potential damage, so he was entitled to claim compensation. Finally, in '' McLoughlin v Jones'' 002QB 1312, there was an allegation that Mr McLoughlin was a bad landlord, threatening and beating up tenants to get their rent from them in cash. He was charged for a criminal offence and sentenced to prison. He claimed that his solicitors (Jones and Others) had acted without the evidence, especially the witness statement of a person who knew that Mr McLoughlin was not present when the beatings allegedly took place. It soon became apparent that he was actually an upstanding member of society and he suffered psychiatric injury as a result of the imprisonment and loss of reputation. (Note that solicitors have a pre-existing duty of care towards their clients.) The case of '' Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police'' established a three factors for a secondary victim to succeed: *Foreseeability – there must be a close relationship of love and affection between the secondary victim and the primary victim. This is presumed in the case of spouses and between parents and children, but must be demonstrated in all others. *Proximity – there must be temporal and spatial proximity between the claimant and the accident. *How the accident was caused, or proximity of perception. Case law where this test has been applied includes '' McLoughlin v O'Brian''
983 Year 983 ( CMLXXXIII) was a common year starting on Monday (link will display the full calendar) of the Julian calendar. Events By place Europe * Summer – Diet of Verona: Emperor Otto II (the Red) declares war against the Byza ...
AC 410, in which the husband and children of the claimant were involved in a car accident that was caused by the negligence of the defendant. The claimant found out about the accident an hour later and, when she got to the hospital two hours later, one child had already died. She saw her husband and children suffering and suffered shock, depression and a change of personality. The court established a spectrum of proximity; a pedestrian should be able to withstand seeing the accidents that occur in everyday life, but a family member of the victims will inevitably suffer greater emotional harm. Nonetheless, simply seeing the aftermath of the accident and not witnessing it is insufficient proximity. Similarly, seeing a video of the accident is insufficient. '' Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police'' (1992) HL was a test case in the aftermath of the Hillsborough disaster, where 95 spectators were crushed to death and 400 injured in a stadium. The event was televised and broadcast on radio. In ''Alcock'', claims for damages for psychiatric illness were brought by fifteen relatives of the victims of the tragedy; some of them had been present at the match - but not in the area where the disaster occurred - and others had seen it on television or heard it on the radio. The Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police denied that the claimants were owed a duty of care. On the basis of the three exclusion criteria mentioned above, all claims were ruled out.


Assumption of responsibility

*''
Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd ''Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd'' 964AC 465 is an English tort law case on economic loss in English tort law resulting from a negligent misstatement. Prior to the decision, the notion that a party may owe another a duty of care ...
'' 964AC 465 *'' Steel v NRAM Ltd (formerly NRAM Plc)'' 018UKSC 13


Pure economic loss

*'' Spartan Steel & Alloys Ltd v Martin & Co (Contractors) Ltd''
973 Year 973 ( CMLXXIII) was a common year starting on Wednesday (link will display the full calendar) of the Julian calendar. Events By place Byzantine Empire * Spring – The Byzantine army, led by General Melias (Domestic of the S ...
QB 27 *'' Murphy v Brentwood District Council'' 9911 AC 398 *''
Aswan Engineering Establishment Co v Lupdine Ltd Aswan (, also ; ar, أسوان, ʾAswān ; cop, Ⲥⲟⲩⲁⲛ ) is a city in Southern Egypt, and is the capital of the Aswan Governorate. Aswan is a busy market and tourist centre located just north of the Aswan Dam on the east bank of the ...
'' 9871 WLR 1 *'' Smith v Eric S Bush'' 9901 AC 831


Omissions and third parties

*'' Smith v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd'' 987UKHL 18 *'' Stovin v Wise'' [1996
UKHL 15


Public bodies

*''Anns v Merton London Borough Council'' *''Home Office v Dorset Yacht'' *''Chief Constable of Hertfordshire Police v Van Colle'' [2008
UKHL 50
*'' Michael v The Chief Constable of South Wales Police'' 015UKSC 2 *'' Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v DSD'' [2018
UKSC 11


Strict and specific torts

While negligence actions set a general groundwork, many further fields of tort have developed their own identity or, where judicial decision-making was seen as insufficient by Parliament, through statutory reform. Major statutory torts concern food safety, health and safety and environmental law. For example, liability under the Nuclear Installations Act 1965, the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, or liability imposed on utility (gas and electricity) companies to ensure the safety of their products, all of which are strict liability. While a statute has said nothing specific, a tortious duty may have arisen. This will be a question of
statutory interpretation Statutory interpretation is the process by which courts interpret and apply legislation. Some amount of interpretation is often necessary when a case involves a statute. Sometimes the words of a statute have a plain and a straightforward meani ...
(e.g. '' Stovin v Wise'' 996AC 923).


Product liability

In consumer protection, with the '' Product Liability Directive'' in the
European Union The European Union (EU) is a supranational political and economic union of member states that are located primarily in Europe. The union has a total area of and an estimated total population of about 447million. The EU has often been de ...
, where businesses making defective products that harm people must pay for any damage resulting. Liability for defective products is strict (see strict liability) in most jurisdictions. The theory of risk spreading provides support for this approach. Since manufacturers are the 'cheapest cost avoiders', because they have a greater chance to seek out problems, it makes sense to give them the incentive to guard against product defects.


Workplace safety

One of the principal terms that accompanies the employment relationship is that the employer will provide a "safe system of work". As the industrial revolution developed, accidents from a hazardous working environment were a front line target for labour legislation, as a series of Factories Acts, from 1802, required minimum standards in workplace cleanliness, ventilation, fencing machinery, not to mention restrictions on child labour and limits to the working day. These Acts typically targeted particular kinds of workplaces, such as mines, or textile mills, before the more generalised approach took hold now seen in the Factories Act 1961. That applies to any workplace where an article is made or changed, or animals are kept and slaughtered. The Employer's Liability (Defective Equipment) Act 1969 made employers automatically liable for equipment with defects supplied by third parties. Because isolated employees lack the technical skill, time, training to litigate, such regulation's primary line of enforcement was through inspectors or agencies before matters went to court. Today the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, enforced by the Health and Safety Executive, is the main law. The HSE can delegate enforcement to local authorities, whose inspectors have the power to investigate and require changes to workplace systems. In addition, HSWA 1974 section 2 foresees that employees will set up their own workplace committees, elected by the employees and with the power to codetermine health and safety matters with management. Spelling out the general duties found in HSWA 1974, are a set of health and safety regulations, which must also stay in line with the European-wide harmonised requirements of the Health and Safety Directive. While the modern scheme of legislation and regulation engenders a comprehensive approach to enforcement and worker participation for health and safety matters, the common law remains relevant for getting civil law compensation, and some limits on an employers' duties. Although the legislative provisions are not automatic, breach of a statutory duty is evidence that a civil law duty has been breached. Injured employees can generally claim for loss of income, and relatives or dependents recover small sums to reflect distress. In principle, employers are
vicariously liable Vicarious liability is a form of a strict, secondary liability that arises under the common law doctrine of agency, ''respondeat superior'', the responsibility of the superior for the acts of their subordinate or, in a broader sense, the respo ...
for all actions of people acting for them in the "course of employment" whenever their actions have a "close connection" to the job, and even if it breaks an employer's rules. Only if an employee is on a "frolic of his own", and the employer cannot be said to have placed him in a position to cause harm, will the employer have a defence. Under the Employers’ Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969, employers must take out insurance for all injury costs, and insurance companies are precluded by law and practice from suing their employees to recover costs unless there is fraud. However, until the mid-20th century there were a series of major limitations. First, until 1937, if an employee was injured by a co-worker, the doctrine of common employment, the employer could only be liable if it was shown they were personally liable by carelessness in selecting staff. The House of Lords changed this in ''
Wilsons & Clyde Coal Co Ltd v English ''Wilsons and Clyde Coal Ltd v English'' 937UKHL 2is a UK labour law case concerning the employer's duty to provide a safe system of work for all its employees. Facts Mr English was employed at Wilsons & Clyde Coal Co Ltd's colliery at Glencrai ...
'', holding an employer had a non-delegable duty of care for all employees. Lord Wright held there were "fundamental obligations of a contract of employment... for which employers are absolutely responsible". The second old restriction was that, until 1891, ''
volenti non fit injuria ''Volenti non fit iniuria'' (or ''injuria'') (Latin: "to a willing person, injury is not done") is a common law doctrine which states that if someone willingly places themselves in a position where harm might result, knowing that some degree of h ...
'' meant workers were assumed to voluntarily accept the dangers of their work by agreeing to their contracts of employment. Only if an employee callously ignores clear directions of the employer will he be taken to have voluntarily assumed the risk, like in '' ICI Ltd v Shatwell'' where an experience quarry shotfirer said he "could not be bothered" to wait 10 minutes before setting of a detonation, and blew up his brother. Third, even if a worker was slightly at fault, until 1945 such contributory negligence precluded the whole of the claim. Now the court will only reduce damages by the amount the employee contributed to their own injury. The fourth defence available to employers, which still exists, is '' ex turpi causa non oritur actio'', that if the employee was engaged in any illegal activity they may not claim compensation for injuries. In '' Hewison v Meridian Shipping Services Pte Ltd'' Mr Hewison concealed his epilepsy so that he could work offshore was technically guilty of illegally attempting to gain a pecuniary advantage by deception under the
Theft Act 1968 The Theft Act 1968c 60 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It creates a number of offences against property in England and Wales. On 15 January 2007 the Fraud Act 2006 came into force, redefining most of the offences of decepti ...
section 16. After being struck in the head by a defective gangplank he suffered worse fits than before, but the Court of Appeal, by a majority, held his illegal act precluded any compensation. The common law of tort also remains particularly relevant for the type of liability an employer has where there is scientific uncertainty about the cause of an injury. In asbestos disease cases, a worker may have been employed with at a number of jobs where he was exposed to asbestos, but his injury cannot with certainty be traced to any one. Although he may be able to sue all of them, a number may have already gone insolvent. In '' Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd'' the House of Lords held that if any employer had materially increased the risk of harm to the worker, they could would be jointly and severally liable and could be sued for the full sum, leaving it up to them to seek contribution from others and thus the risk of other businesses' insolvency. For a brief period, in '' Barker v Corus'' the House of Lords then decided that employers would only be liable on a proportionate basis, thus throwing the risk of employers' insolvency back onto workers. Immediately Parliament passed the
Compensation Act 2006 The Compensation Act 2006 (c 29) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, introduced in response to concerns about a growing compensation culture but conversely to ensure that the public received dependable service from claims manageme ...
section 3 to reverse the decision on its facts. It has also been held in '' Chandler v Cape plc'', in 2011, that even though a subsidiary company is the direct employer of a worker, a parent company will owe a duty of care. Thus shareholders may not be able to hide behind the
corporate veil Piercing the corporate veil or lifting the corporate veil is a legal decision to treat the rights or duties of a corporation as the rights or liabilities of its shareholders. Usually a corporation is treated as a separate legal person, which is s ...
to escape their obligations for the health and safety of the workforce.


Road safety

Many serious accidents in practice take place on the roads. Like workplaces, this encouraged Parliament to require compulsory insurance for harm. The Road Traffic Act 1988 requires that motorists either be insured against any liability for injuries to other drivers, pedestrians or passengers and damage to property, or have made a specified deposit (£500,000 in 1991) and keeps the sum deposited with the Accountant General of the Supreme Court. Using an uninsured motor vehicle on public roads is an offence. Private land to which the public have a reasonable right of access (for example, a supermarket car park during opening hours) is considered to be included within the requirements of the Act. Police may seize vehicles that do not appear to have necessary insurance in place. Drivers caught driving without insurance for a vehicle they own are liable to be prosecuted by the police and, upon conviction, will receive either a fixed penalty or magistrate's courts penalty. *
Vehicle Excise Duty Vehicle Excise Duty (VED; also known as "vehicle tax", "car tax", and more controversially as " road tax", and formerly as a "tax disc") is an annual tax that is levied as an excise duty and which must be paid for most types of powered vehicles whi ...
* Comprehensive Cover * Motor Insurers' Bureau *
Highway Code ''The Highway Code'' is a set of information, advice, guides and mandatory rules for road users in the United Kingdom. Its objective is to promote road safety. The ''Highway Code'' applies to all road users including pedestrians, horse riders ...
*
Driving Standards Agency The Driving Standards Agency (DSA) was an executive agency of the UK Department for Transport (DfT). DSA promoted road safety in Great Britain by improving driving and motorcycling standards. It set standards for education and training, as wel ...


Environmental damage

* Climate damage and the Climate Change Act 2008 *
Environmental Protection Act 1990 The Environmental Protection Act 1990 (initialism: EPA) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that defines, within England and Wales and Scotland, the fundamental structure and authority for waste management and control of emissions ...
* Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive 2008/1/EC * Industrial Emissions Directive 2010 2010/75/EU


Occupiers' liability

Occupiers' Liability is currently governed by the two Occupier's Liability Acts,
1957 1957 ( MCMLVII) was a common year starting on Tuesday of the Gregorian calendar, the 1957th year of the Common Era (CE) and ''Anno Domini'' (AD) designations, the 957th year of the 2nd millennium, the 57th year of the 20th century, and the 8th year ...
and
1984 Events January * January 1 – The Bornean Sultanate of Brunei gains full independence from the United Kingdom, having become a British protectorate in 1888. * January 7 – Brunei becomes the sixth member of the Association of Southeas ...
. Under these rules, an occupier, such as a shopkeeper, a home owner or a public authority, who invites others onto their land, or has trespassers, owes a minimum duty of care for people's safety. One early case was ''Cooke v Midland Great Western Railway of Ireland''
909 __NOTOC__ Year 909 ( CMIX) was a common year starting on Sunday (link will display the full calendar) of the Julian calendar. Events By place Britain * King Edward the Elder and his sister, Princess Æthelflæd of Mercia, raid Danish ...
AC 229, in which Lord Macnaughton felt that children who were hurt whilst looking for berries on a building site, should have some compensation for their unfortunate curiosity. *''
Roles v Nathan ''Roles v. Nathan (t/a Manchester Assembly Rooms)'' 9631 W.L.R. 1117, 9632 All E.R. 908 is an occupiers' liability case in English tort law. It concerns s.2(3)(b) of the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957, which states, "An occupier may expect that ...
'' *''
Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council ''Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council'' 003UKHL 47is a 2003 court case in England from the House of Lords regarding the torts of negligence and occupiers' liability (the latter regarding the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984). It was a landmark ...
''


Nuisance

The tort of nuisance allows a claimant (formerly plaintiff) to sue for most acts that interfere with their use and enjoyment of their land. A good example of this is in the case of ''Jones v Powell'' (1629). A brewery made stinking vapors waft to neighbours' property, damaging his papers. Because he was a landowner, the neighbour sued in nuisance for this damage. But Whitelocke J, speaking for the Court of the King's Bench, said that because the water supply was contaminated, it was better that the neighbour's documents were risked. He said "it is better that they should be spoiled than that the common wealth stand in need of good liquor." Nowadays, interfering with neighbours' property is not looked upon so kindly. Nuisance deals with all kinds of things that spoil a landowner's enjoyment of his property. *''
Sturges v Bridgman ''Sturges v Bridgman'' (1879) LR 11 Ch D 852 is a landmark case in nuisance decided by the Court of Appeal of England and Wales. It decides that what constitutes reasonable use of one's property depends on the character of the locality and tha ...
'' *'' Miller v Jackson'' A subset of nuisance is known as the rule in ''Rylands v Fletcher'', which originates in a case where a dam burst into a coal mine shaft. In such cases, a dangerous escape of some hazard, including water, fire, or animals, gives rise to a strict liability claim. This is subject only to a remoteness cap, familiar from
negligence Negligence (Lat. ''negligentia'') is a failure to exercise appropriate and/or ethical ruled care expected to be exercised amongst specified circumstances. The area of tort law known as ''negligence'' involves harm caused by failing to act as a ...
when the event is unusual and unpredictable. This was the case where chemicals from a factory seeped through a floor into the water table, contaminating East Anglia's reservoirs.


Trespass

A trespass is a direct injury to a person, his property or land, committed directly and intentionally by the defendant, for example, walking on someone's land is not trespass but cutting a gate into pieces with a saw is. However, this rule did not cater for anything injured indirectly by a person, for example if a farmer sets fire to a field, and someone's home is subsequently damaged. Trespass by the case did, however, provide a legal writ for injury caused indirectly by an action. *''
Case of Thorns The ''Case of the Thorns'' (1466) YB 6 Ed 4, 7a pl 18 is an important historical court case from the King's Bench in common law torts. The Legal case, English case, which occurred in the 15th century, is the earliest record of a common law court ...
''


Defamation

Defamation means tarnishing the reputation of someone. It is divided into two parts, slander and libel. Slander is spoken defamation and libel is defaming somebody through print (or broadcasting). Both share the same features. To defame someone, you must (a) make a factual assertion (b) for which you cannot provide evidence of its truth. Defamation does not affect the voicing of opinions, but comes into the same fields as rights to free speech in the European Convention's Article 10.


Breach of confidence

UK courts have created a common law responsibility to not share non-public information about others under certain circumstances, regardless of the existence of a contractual agreement.


Intentional torts

Intentional torts are any intentional acts that are reasonably foreseeable to cause harm to an individual, and that do so. Intentional torts have several subcategories, including tort(s) against the person, including assault, battery,
false imprisonment False imprisonment or unlawful imprisonment occurs when a person intentionally restricts another person’s movement within any area without legal authority, justification, or the restrained person's permission. Actual physical restraint is ...
,
intentional infliction of emotional distress Intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED; sometimes called the tort of outrage) is a common law tort that allows individuals to recover for severe emotional distress caused by another individual who intentionally or recklessly inflicted ...
, and fraud. Property torts involve any intentional interference with the property rights of the claimant. Those commonly recognised include trespass to land, trespass to chattels, and conversion. *'' Derry v Peek''


Economic torts and competition

Economic torts protect people from interference with their trade or business. The area includes the doctrine of restraint of trade and has largely been submerged in the twentieth century by statutory interventions on collective labour law and modern antitrust or competition law. The "absence of any unifying principle drawing together the different heads of economic tort liability has often been remarked upon." Two cases demonstrated economic tort's affinity to competition and labour law. In ''Mogul Steamship Co. Ltd.'' the plaintiff argued he had been driven from the Chinese tea market by competitors at a 'shipping conference' that had acted together to underprice his company. But this
cartel A cartel is a group of independent market participants who collude with each other in order to improve their profits and dominate the market. Cartels are usually associations in the same sphere of business, and thus an alliance of rivals. Mos ...
was ruled lawful and "nothing more hana war of competition waged in the interest of their own trade." Nowadays, this would be considered a criminal cartel. In labour law the most notable case is ''
Taff Vale Railway Co v Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants ''Taff Vale Railway Co v Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants'' [1901UKHL 1 commonly known as the ''Taff Vale case'', is a formative case in UK labour law. It held that, at common law, Trade union, unions could be liable for loss of profits t ...
''. The House of Lords thought that unions should be liable in tort for helping workers to go on strike for better pay and conditions, but it riled workers so much that it led to the creation of the British Labour Party and the
Trade Disputes Act 1906 The Trade Disputes Act 1906 (6 Edw. 7 c. 47) was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed under the Liberal government of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman. The Act declared that unions could not be sued for damages incurred during a ...
. Further torts used against unions include conspiracy, interference with a commercial contract or intimidation. Through a recent development in common law, beginning with ''Hedley Byrne v Heller'' in 1964, and further through the Misrepresentations Act 1967, a victim of the tort of
misrepresentation In common law jurisdictions, a misrepresentation is a false or misleading '' R v Kylsant'' 931/ref> statement of fact made during negotiations by one party to another, the statement then inducing that other party to enter into a contract. The ...
will be compensated for purely economic loss due to the misconception of the terms of the
contract A contract is a legally enforceable agreement between two or more parties that creates, defines, and governs mutual rights and obligations between them. A contract typically involves the transfer of goods, services, money, or a promise to tr ...
. The English doctrine of restraint of trade was the catalyst for much of what is now called "competition laws" (or sometimes "antitrust"). These laws are a way of restraining those who would restrain "free competition" in the market economy, through monopolising production, setting up cartels, imposing unfair trading conditions, prices and so on. The English approach has traditionally been very flexible and liberal in its scope, but draconian when it did deem certain behaviour to be in restraint of trade. Many of these laws around the end of the nineteenth century were focused on the emasculation of trade unionism, until the reforming government of 1906 and the
Trade Disputes Act 1906 The Trade Disputes Act 1906 (6 Edw. 7 c. 47) was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed under the Liberal government of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman. The Act declared that unions could not be sued for damages incurred during a ...
. Aside from the common law, legislation was introduced shortly after the second world war to foot policy on a statutory basis, the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Act 1948, followed later by the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1956 and the Monopolies and Mergers Act 1965. Since 1972, however, the U.K. has fallen under the cross-border-competition law regime of the European Community, which is found primarily in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty of the European Community. Companies that form a cartel or collude to disrupt competition ( Article 81) or to abuse a dominant position in the market – for instance through a
monopoly A monopoly (from Greek el, μόνος, mónos, single, alone, label=none and el, πωλεῖν, pōleîn, to sell, label=none), as described by Irving Fisher, is a market with the "absence of competition", creating a situation where a speci ...
( Article 82) – face fines from the public-enforcement authorities, and in some cases they also face a cause of action in tort. A huge issue in the E.U. is whether to follow the U.S. approach of private damages actions to prevent anti-competitive conduct. In other words, the question is what should be seen as a private wrong (as was held in the
vertical restraints Vertical restraints are competition restrictions in agreements between firms or individuals at different levels of the production and distribution process. Vertical restraints are to be distinguished from so-called "horizontal restraints", which are ...
case of ''Courage Ltd v Crehan'') and what should be seen as a public wrong where only public enforcers are competent to impose penalties. In 1998 the United Kingdom brought its legislation up to date, with the
Competition Act 1998 The Competition Act 1998 is the current major source of competition law in the United Kingdom, along with the Enterprise Act 2002. The act provides an updated framework for identifying and dealing with restrictive business practices and abuse o ...
, followed by the Enterprise Act 2002, a regime mirroring that of the
European Union The European Union (EU) is a supranational political and economic union of member states that are located primarily in Europe. The union has a total area of and an estimated total population of about 447million. The EU has often been de ...
. The domestic enforcers are the Office of Fair Trading and the
Competition Commission The Competition Commission was a non-departmental public body responsible for investigating mergers, markets and other enquiries related to regulated industries under competition law in the United Kingdom. It was a competition regulator under t ...
.


Vicarious liability

Vicarious liability refers to the idea of an employer being liable for torts committed by their employees, generally for policy reasons, and to ensure that victims have a means of recovery. The word "vicarious" derives from the
Latin Latin (, or , ) is a classical language belonging to the Italic branch of the Indo-European languages. Latin was originally a dialect spoken in the lower Tiber area (then known as Latium) around present-day Rome, but through the power of the ...
for 'change' or 'alternation' and the old Latin for the doctrine is '' respondeat superior''. To establish vicarious liability, the courts must find first that there exists a relationship of employee and employer. The torts of independent contractors generally do not impose vicarious liability on employers; however, ''
Honeywill and Stein Ltd v Larkin Brothers Ltd ''Honeywill and Stein Ltd v Larkin Brothers Ltd'' 9341 KB 191 is an English tort law case, establishing that employers may be vicariously liable for damage done by their independent contractors, where they carry out 'extra-hazardous' activities. ...
'' demonstrates this principle does not apply where particularly hazardous activities are contracted for, or a non-delegable duty is owed. Secondly, the tort must have been committed 'in the course of employment'; or while an employee is going about the business of their employer. A preferred test of the courts for connecting torts to the course of employment was formulated by
John William Salmond Sir John William Salmond (3 December 1862 – 19 September 1924) was a legal scholar, public servant and judge in New Zealand. Biography Salmond was born in North Shields, Northumberland, England, the eldest son of William Salmond (died 19 ...
, which states that an employer will be held liable for either a wrongful act they have authorised, or a wrongful and unauthorised mode of an act that was authorised. Where in ''
Limpus v London General Omnibus Company Limpus is a surname. Notable people with the surname include: *Arthur Limpus Admiral Sir Arthur Henry Limpus, (7 June 1863 – 3 November 1931) was a Royal Navy officer who became Admiral Superintendent of Malta Dockyard. Naval career Promoted ...
'' an omnibus driver chose to disobey strict instructions from his employer, to obstruct a rival company, they were still liable, as he was merely engaging in his duties in an unauthorised way. However, in the contrasting case of ''
Beard v London General Omnibus Company A beard is the hair that grows on the jaw, chin, upper lip, lower lip, cheeks, and neck of humans and some non-human animals. In humans, usually pubescent or adult males are able to grow beards. Throughout the course of history, societal at ...
'', there was no liability where a conductor drove an omnibus negligently, as it was no part of his duties. Under the test, employers were generally not held liable for intentional torts of their employees. '' Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd'' established a newer test, stating that employers would be liable for torts which were ''closely connected'' to the duties of an employee. *'' Catholic Child Welfare Society v Institute of the Brothers of the Christian Schools'' UKSC_56
*''Mohamud_v_WM_Morrison_Supermarkets_plc.html" ;"title="012
UKSC 56
*''Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets plc">012
UKSC 56
*''Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets plc'' [2016] UKSC 11 *''Cox v Ministry of Justice'' [2016
UKSC 10
*''WM Morrisons Supermarkets plc v Various Claimants''
020 020 is the national dialling code for London in the United Kingdom. All subscriber numbers within the area code consist of eight digits and it has capacity for approaching 100 million telephone numbers. The code is used at 170 telephone exch ...
UKSC 12, not liable for a vengeful employee who posted the personal data of 100,000 employees online *'' Barclays Bank plc v Various Claimants''
020 020 is the national dialling code for London in the United Kingdom. All subscriber numbers within the area code consist of eight digits and it has capacity for approaching 100 million telephone numbers. The code is used at 170 telephone exch ...
UKSC 13, no liability for self-employed doctor who was engaged to examine staff and sexually assaulted them


Remedies


Damages

The main remedy against tortious loss is compensation in 'damages' or money. In a limited range of cases, tort law will tolerate self-help, such as reasonable force to expel a trespasser. This is a defence against the tort of battery. Further, in the case of a continuing tort, or even where harm is merely threatened, the courts will sometimes grant an injunction. This means a command, for something other than money by the court, such as restraining the continuance or threat of harm. For people who have died as a result of another person's tort, the damages that their estate or their families may gain is governed by the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 (replacing the Fatal Accidents Act 1846). Under s.1A the spouse or dependent of a victim may receive £11,800 in bereavement damages.


Injunctions

As a remedy to tort, injunctions are most commonly used in cases of
Nuisance Nuisance (from archaic ''nocence'', through Fr. ''noisance'', ''nuisance'', from Lat. ''nocere'', "to hurt") is a common law tort. It means that which causes offence, annoyance, trouble or injury. A nuisance can be either public (also "common") ...
. The court may impose an injunction on a tortfeasor, such as in
Sturges v Bridgman ''Sturges v Bridgman'' (1879) LR 11 Ch D 852 is a landmark case in nuisance decided by the Court of Appeal of England and Wales. It decides that what constitutes reasonable use of one's property depends on the character of the locality and tha ...
. This legally obliges the tortfeasor to stop or reduce the activity causing the nuisance and its breach could, potentially, be a criminal offence. Injunctions may be used instead of or as well as the awarding of damages (above).


Theory and reform

Scholars and lawyers have identified conflicting aims for the law of tort, to some extent reflected in the different types of damages awarded by the courts: compensatory, aggravated and
punitive Punishment, commonly, is the imposition of an undesirable or unpleasant outcome upon a group or individual, meted out by an authority—in contexts ranging from child discipline to criminal law—as a response and deterrent to a particular acti ...
or exemplary. In ''The Aims of the Law of Tort'' (1951), Glanville Williams saw four possible bases on which different torts rested: appeasement, justice, deterrence and compensation. From the late 1950s a group of legally oriented economists and economically oriented lawyers emphasised incentives and deterrence, and identified the aim of tort as being the efficient distribution of
risk In simple terms, risk is the possibility of something bad happening. Risk involves uncertainty about the effects/implications of an activity with respect to something that humans value (such as health, well-being, wealth, property or the environm ...
. They are often described as the ''
law and economics Law and economics, or economic analysis of law, is the application of microeconomic theory to the analysis of law, which emerged primarily from scholars of the Chicago school of economics. Economic concepts are used to explain the effects of law ...
movement''.
Ronald Coase Ronald Harry Coase (; 29 December 1910 – 2 September 2013) was a British economist and author. Coase received a bachelor of commerce degree (1932) and a PhD from the London School of Economics, where he was a member of the faculty until 1951. ...
, one of the movement's principal proponents, submitted, in his article ''
The Problem of Social Cost "The Problem of Social Cost" (1960) by Ronald Coase, then a faculty member at the University of Virginia, is an article dealing with the economic problem of externalities. It draws from a number of English legal cases and statutes to illustrate Co ...
'' (1960), that the aim of tort should be to reflect as closely as possible liability where
transaction cost In economics and related disciplines, a transaction cost is a cost in making any economic trade when participating in a market. Oliver E. Williamson defines transaction costs as the costs of running an economic system of companies, and unlike pro ...
s should be minimised. Calls for reform of tort law come from diverse standpoints reflecting diverse theories of the objectives of the law. Some calls for reform stress the difficulties encountered by potential claimants. Because of all people who have accidents, only some can find solvent defendants from which to recover damages in the courts, P. S. Atiyah has called the situation a "damages lottery".Atiyah, P. S. (1997) ''The Damages Lottery'' Consequently, in
New Zealand New Zealand ( mi, Aotearoa ) is an island country in the southwestern Pacific Ocean. It consists of two main landmasses—the North Island () and the South Island ()—and over 700 smaller islands. It is the sixth-largest island count ...
, the government in the 1960s established a "no-fault" system of state compensation for accidents. Similar proposals have been the subject of command papers in the UK and much academic debate. There is some overlap between crime and tort, since tort, a private action, used to be used more than criminal laws in centuries gone. For example, an assault is both a crime and a tort (a form of trespass to the person). A tort allows a person, usually the victim, to obtain a remedy that serves their own purposes (for example by the payment of
damages At common law, damages are a remedy in the form of a monetary award to be paid to a claimant as compensation for loss or injury. To warrant the award, the claimant must show that a breach of duty has caused foreseeable loss. To be recognised at ...
to a person injured in a car accident, or the obtaining of injunctive relief to stop a person interfering with their business). Criminal actions on the other hand are pursued not to obtain remedies to assist a person — although often criminal courts do have power to grant such remedies — but to remove their liberty on the state's behalf. That explains why incarceration is usually available as a penalty for serious crimes, but not usually for torts.


See also

* English contract law *
Insurance law Insurance law is the practice of law surrounding insurance, including insurance policies and claims. It can be broadly broken into three categories - regulation of the business of insurance; regulation of the content of insurance policies, especial ...
*
Law Law is a set of rules that are created and are enforceable by social or governmental institutions to regulate behavior,Robertson, ''Crimes against humanity'', 90. with its precise definition a matter of longstanding debate. It has been vario ...
*
Jurisprudence Jurisprudence, or legal theory, is the theoretical study of the propriety of law. Scholars of jurisprudence seek to explain the nature of law in its most general form and they also seek to achieve a deeper understanding of legal reasoning a ...


Notes


References

*S Deakin, A Johnston & B Markesinis. ''Tort Law'', 5th edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. *M Lunney & Ken Oliphant. ''Tort Law – Texts, Cases'', 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. *Alastair Mullis & Ken Oliphant. ''Torts'', 3rd edn. Palgrave, 2003. *''Cases, Materials and Text on National, Supranational and International Tort Law'' {{DEFAULTSORT:English Tort Law